Customer Reviews

Why Art Cannot Be Taught: A Handbook for Art Students

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

The answer: I think so. The author changed my way of thinking about the subject of what is plausible in arts education in our time. The apprearance of total artistic freedom from judgement as formulated by postmodernists, yet the intrinsic nature of how the academy/school affects an artist, is seriously examined by Elkins.

This book is amongst the first to pragmatically question some of our common misunderstandings about the methodology involved in teaching the visual arts. The reason for this maybe due in part to modernist and postmodernist intellectualizing of art (e.g.-the endless pages of ink spilled in history books about content free Minimalist paintings and Conceptual Art). Elkins really does an marvelous job at collecting the evidence that studio art teaching and learning is fundamentally different in goals from more conventional subjects such as the sciences, languages and even music...yet, artists should have a somewhat rounded education.

To the authors credit, the book avoids the idealistic view of the arts, dispenses with the RomanticEra cliches of " the gifted talent" or "starving artist" or "outsider art" and deals with THE pragmatic reality of art instruction. Elkins' surveys are about the historical roots of art instruction: the Medieval workshops, the Renaissance guilds,the Baroque academies, and the 20th c. Bauhaus School are compared and contrasted with one another.

THIS comparison of instruction models is EXCELLENT!

The assumed historical 'reality' of the types of artists each system was capable of producing serves as a spring board for discussions on how philosophical discourse influences the instruction model. The book addresses the question of "what body of knowledge is central to the education of an artist?" Is it life drawing, technical and mechanical skills or is it a selected reading and immersion in the liberal arts(i.e.- should an artist have a classical education w/ emphasis on Greek literature -or- postmodernist and shifting in emphasis related to an artist's native culture?_)

Elkin's book fully illustrates the very real world dilemna that students interested in the visual arts face when choosing between "art schools" and small "Liberal arts colleges." "Art schools" tend to only be interested in art, with a myriad of opportunities to be exposed to the art world, with little if any exposure to core general education courses. Paradoxically, the art schools are also places where one is likely to find the latest art theory in deployment despite an 'art school'student populace that MAY NOT have the educational background to engage in meaningful discussion with instructors. The situation is the exact inverse with students at "liberal arts colleges" (and the university in general) where the student is academically armed, yet, is enrolled in significantly less demanding studio courses. "Liberal Arts colleges" and art departments of universities,while providing excellant general education for an art student -most barely engage in the issues of making Studio Art much beyond the dilettante level. Elkins makes a very fine point of emphasis on what is either impractical or too obscure to teach about art in the general curriculum of both classroom enviroments-i.e.-such things as art that uses obscure techniques, extremely radical and/or conservative methods. He deals with that rarely mentioned art class phenomenon- "the critque"- where the student presents thier work to the class to be analyized. Elkins illuminates 'The critque' of art schools (and studio art departments) in a manner that should deal with every sort of postive and negative experience that could be siphoned from such an ordeal.

Essentially the heart of "Why Art Cannot be Taught" is to illuminate what works and what makes 'sense' to teach in the pedantic school environment about art. Elkin's thesis ("that art cannot be taught") is a descriptive interpretation of the reality that art education like 'true art', the 100%creative stuff, is something unique and irrational that can't be easily duplicated at the whim of educators. A must for anyone that has interest in the peculiarities of being a student of the visual arts!

As a recovering survivor of an MFA program I can wholly relate to Elkins' criticisms about the failure of critiques to shape art and artists. It is poignant that Elkins is unable to offer up a solution.

James Elkins is not an artist... he is an art theorist. The book should be titled "Why Art Theory Fails in the Studio"... or "Why James Elkin's Generally Fails to Educate". If you are interested in the 1001 and one ways that Critique and Art Theory confound themselves in inherent contradictions, then by all means. If you are down with the Elkin's self-proclaimed skepticism and cynicism... with his claim that his art teaching experience is typically irrational and useless (and a dozen other negatives)... but that he doesn't want to see it changed... then by all means.

As for the question "Why Art Cannot Be Taught"... that is easy. It's not true. Art can be taught in any environment that can articulate and commit to a coherent idea of what art is. The problem is, that the typical postmodern art institution cannot articulate a meaningful conception of art. Elkins states that the issue doesn't matter... that he is fine with any number of contradictory conceptions of art. What matters to Elkins is not what art is... but how to talk about it. How you can talk about a subject that you can't or won't conceive of clearly, is absurd... and is also the specialty of post-modern art talk.

Let's be honest here... You can't teach what you can't state clearly. Imagine you want to teach something like "plumbing". You want to teach people to do plumbing work. The first thing you have to do is state clearly what plumbing is... something like... "Plumbing is the systematic use of pipes to route fluids around the house". Given that conception, you can build a body of knowledge and techniques, and teach it to someone.

Now imagine if you let the conception of plumbing fall prey to a series of re-definitions that are incommensurate with the original idea of plumbing. Someone might say that plumbing also deals with electrical wiring, or blood vessels, or mashed potatoes, or tap dancing. While traditional plumbers would reject such re-definitions... the avant gard plumbers would welcome such new ideas, as it would spice up the boring world of plumbing school. But a strange thing happens on the way to this open-ended nirvana.. the things now included in plumbing are INCOMMENSURATE... they have no conceptual common denominator. As such, they cannot be included in the same class of thing.. they can't be conceived of.. they can't be thought of. The Concept Formerly Known As Plumbing no longer exists, because the items included in this redefining are incommensurate.. they can't be conceived of together. Plumbing would lose it's meaning.

This is the problem with art. So much is included, that art has lost identity. The only way to glue together all the incommensurate claims to art is... is to just refer to them as "human action"... or "things people make". But this category is so large as to provide no meaningful guidance on how to "make art". If art can be anything, then all you can say to someone who wants to learn how to make it is to tell them... "Do whatever you want".

Some teachers might actually say this.. but they are dishonest.. because at the end of the day someone's art has to get selected for awards and prizes.. and scholarships are handed out... and favorites have to be annointed. And these actions require standards. If there are not standards for art, then where do the standards come from for these judgments.

Why of course, they come from intellectuals.. who decide NOT what things are... but what they mean. Elkins and his type come forward. They are the overseers of the institutions of post modern art. They have no useful conception of art, and therefore cannot teach art. What they offer instead is to interpret the meanings of the things people make. But as Elkins himself confesses, this is a failure too. This fails because you the root issue has failed.. the issue of a useful conception of art. It always goes back to fundamentals.

You can't teach a subject if you can't state the identity of that subject, and commit to that identity. You can't be a skeptic who floats on the breeze of any "interesting" idea, and at the same time deliver a lesson that makes sense. In Elkin's view, it isn't ART that matters, but TEACHING that matters. In Elkins view, art teaching is equivalent to the art critique as it goes down in art schools. Most of the book is taken up talking about issues that come up in critiques. Critiques are talk... critiques are theory... critiques are products of intellect... AND this is what Elkins equates with learning art. But what can you expect from an intellectual... except the intellectualization of everything related to art.

His observations about critique, and the attitudes of the participants, and the rationality of this form of discourse... it is all interesting enough. He clearly has spent his career doing this sort of thing, and his analysis comes across as insightful. I wouldn't know... because I'm not an art theorist at a post modern art school.

My art school experience was draped in the frustration of wondering if and when I was learning anything. The real failure of art instruction isn't about how high-minded critiques go wrong... but in much simpler things.. such as the failure of art instruction to teach the basics of visual representation, and then the systematic development of basics into intermediate and advanced skills and ideas. These approach is marginalized by Elkins, who characterizes it as a remnant of some historical system of academic art instruction that no longer matters. Of course, he can do this because he has no commitment to any conception of art. He not only marginalizes academic training... he marginalizes everything... except (of course) the act of marginalizing itself.

The skeptic says you can't know anything... and he knows it. If you can squeeze that, and a million other pieces of nonsense in your brain.. then you can't learn art.. but you can be a great artist. Just ask Elkins.

this book is not for current art students, or graduates (it's simply too late for you to read this)

considering the expensive and time consuming path of art training at the University level ? then i recommend reading (or even just skimming) "Why Art Cannot Be Taught : A HANDBOOK FOR ART STUDENTS" not only because it gives a clear overview of the evolution of the methods of passing craftsmanship in the fine arts through (European) history, but because you'll see that picking a few art classes is probably going to serve you far better than undertaking a full course of study (and the stories of "classroom psychodrama", and students having to explain and defend their work was easily worth the price of the book, IMHO)

As a critique of how studio art has traditionally been taught at the university level, Elkins is dead on (pun intended). His portrayal of B.F.A./M.F.A. programs is vividly familiar to anyone who has gone that route. The book is also hilarious and a great read. But since we (studio folk) are the chief audience, we already know all of this, right?

The critique of Elkins' book is not that he misrepresents anything, but that he misses things: namely the field that addresses teaching art, known as "art education." He does not pretend to consider it, but that doesn't excuse the neglect. If that sounds funny to you, meaning you assume Art Education is a joke-field, I urge you to delve into the research published in its premier journal, "Studies in Art Education," and, then, compare this research to that which has recently emerged from Art History and Art--that is, if "Art" (studio professors) produces any research at all. Well, it does here and there, and Art History produces some interesting research, as does Art Education, whose primary agenda is to address issues of critical theory, postmodernism, and visual/material culture. In fact, I understand that the Art department at Elkins' institution is in the process of making this pedagogical shift as well as some other leading Art schools here and abroad, like Yale.

The point I'm making is that Elkin's portrait--that postmodern art is at odds with the outdated mode that exists in art schools--is partly untrue. Cutting-edge Art programs, and certainly Art Education, are exploring interesting post-disciplinary projects that resonate nicely with the sublime mantra of the postmodernist discourse that informs them. In a general sense, the schools that Elkins describes are those whose tenured faculty have rested on their boring Modernist laurels, which died quicker than their 4th-tier universities could pass them through the nominal tenure process, a tragedy that I think is slowly but surely evaporating.

Understanding that Elkins is probably aware of all of this and expecting academic readers to draw this out of the book, it's not so bad. But for those who do not know the inner workings of academic art programs, the book could do a better job of explaining where the pedagogical answer lies. I like to think that for some reason, Elkins had those answers and kept them reserved for another book, rather than that he, like the oldie-moldy prof's he ribs, is a living anachronism.

Chatty and irresistable, rather than being the harsh polemic that the title might suggest, this volume is a multifaceted discussion of the issues involved in teaching and studying art in a studio environment. Anyone who has ever lived through a studio critique will find the book hard to put down. Like Elkin's earlier work, "What Painting Is," it will make any art-student readers wish that they could study with him at the Art Institute of Chicago.

Despite the provocative title, Elkins has very little interest in transforming arts education. Rather, he wants to point to both the virtues and the pitfalls of critique-based evaluation, and to get both teachers and students to appreciate just what a mysterious and irrational process it is to attempt to teach/learn the studio arts.

The author is an insider speaking candidly for other insiders -- the audience for this valuable and intelligent essay may not be huge, but within that group, it will stimulate many electrifying conversations.

The author details art instruction through the ages and discusses the question asked in the title. Art and artists would be so much better thought of by society, and art istself would improve, if the ideas in this book were taken seriously. It is a DEEP book, not for casual reading.